Although the Graham standard invites different interpretations, the Supreme Court had a clear intent in mind during the ruling. “Part 1 Graham v. Connor.” Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, http://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIGrahamvConnor.pdf. This allows police to interpret their own meaning of reasonableness. 14 After 1989, the organization decided to implement the Graham standard when teaching officers about excessive force.

According to Jay Gold from the Utah Bar Journal, “many people, lawyers included, do not fully understand the legal standards that govern whether officers are subject to civil damages liability for the force they apply”.21 After calling the Hatboro Police Department, two police officers decided to forgo the interview regarding their training of Graham v. Connor and their personal definition of excessive force due to the fact that “they don’t feel comfortable doing the interview considering everything that has been going on”.22 Their unwillingness to interview further shows the current ambiguity surrounding the Graham standard and the possible backlash for providing the wrong answer. 1-81. 28, no. 26Obasogie, Osagie K. and Zachary Newman.

28, no. “Contemporary Trends in Qualified Immunity Jurisprudence: Are Circuit Courts Misapplying Graham V. Connor?.” Utah Bar Journal, vol.

Ever since the precedent of “objective reasonableness” regarding cases involving excessive force have left the power in the hands of the police officers, courts have interpreted the standard in various ways. Because every situation regarding interactions between police and civilians differs, there are no laws that could completely diminish the question of excessive force; however, adding more specified and concrete training will ideally cause officers to become aware of what is truly considered excessive force. 87-6571. 29Avelar, Tracy A.

“Understanding Graham v. Connor.” Police Magazine, 27 Oct. 2014,www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/10/understanding-graham-v-connor.aspx. 3, May/Jun2015, pp. He asked his friend William Berry to drive him to a convenience store to get orange juice.

Connor, the Graham standard was created. 12“Graham v. Connor.” Oyez, 19 Sep. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571. Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Statement of the Facts: The Petitioner Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction. Since 1989, the Graham standard has been intensely debated and protested, but recently the question of race has become a factor, and the motives and potential biases of police officers regarding people of color has come to public attention.

The court emphasized that “reasonableness” is to be determined by the officers on the scene and not determined by a four-part factor test.32 The intent of the Supreme Court’s decision was to be more understanding of the “realities of law enforcement” and the uniqueness of each case they encounter.33 The decision intended to emphasize that officers are often put in extraneous situations that cannot realistically be judged by an objective four-factor test.

Facts of the Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. 11Halman, L M. “Johnson v. Glick– Section 1983 Damages for Brutality.” NCJRS Abstract National Criminal Justice Reference.

In simpler terms, the objective reasonableness test decides whether the officer could have reasonably believed that Graham was a shoplifter, all personal beliefs aside.10 In a previous case, Johnson v. Glick, involving the assault of a prisoner by a prison guard, a circuit court implemented a four-part due process test that takes into account officers’ “good faith” efforts.11 Instead of using this previous ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the “reasonableness” of the situation should be determined on a case-by-case basis and not a set of predetermined standards.12. Alternatively, courts have also interpreted the Graham standard in favor of the officer. The Supreme Court chose to evaluate police brutality based on subjective terms, usually presented by the officer at the scene. The “30 Guiding Principles” should not stand alone, but instead further explain the ideas behind the Graham v. Connor decision regarding “excessive force” during police training programs. 112, no. GRAHAM v. CONNOR(1989) No. ( Log Out / 

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) proposed “30 Guiding Principles” that included policy recommendations, which went higher than the standards found in Graham v. Connor.38 The central themes of the “30 Guiding Principles” include: “sanctity of human life, use force that is proportionate, and de-escalate whenever possible”.39 Additionally, PERF recommends that a critical decision-making model is set in place.40 As evidenced by the history of court decisions regarding excessive force, something must be done to reform the currently standard in place. Although the test of “objective reasonableness” has been heavily debated due to its broad and unclear scope, additional attention surrounding police brutality ensued after several cases in 2014 regarding unarmed black men resulted in acquittal of the police officer. 34“Mr. 28, no. 87-6571 Argued: February 21, 1989 Decided: May 15, 1989.

After realizing the line was too long,  he left the store in a hurry.1 Two police officers assumed Graham was stealing, so they pulled his car over.2 Graham exited the car, and the police forcefully handcuffed him and pushed his head into the roof of the car.3 The police eventually released him, but he showed evidence of bruises and a broken foot.4 Graham later filed charges involving the excessive use of force.5 Graham then argued that the district court incorrectly applied the four-part due process test established in Johnson v. Glick, and he argued for a standard of “objective reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment.6 The case eventually reached The Supreme Court. 8Gold, Jay. 7“Graham v. Connor.” Oyez, 19 Sep. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571. 28“Graham v. Connor.” SCOTUS Search, 1989, www.scotussearch.com/casefiles/2155. The jury also stated that Pantaleo did not expect that the chokehold would kill Garner, so his actions were not considered “excessive force”. 38Wexler, Chuck. Syllabus.